Loading...
Minutes 2.21.24(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 1 TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LAUREN & CHRISTIAN FREYER AGENT(S) RU HOLMES ENGINEERS PLLC OWNER(S) LAUREN & CHRISTIAN FREYER ZONING WR LOCATION PULVER ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,573 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,874 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVED BY LOCAL BOH IS PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACROSS PULVER ROAD AND CONNECTION TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BY THE SAME OWNER. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 73-2023; FWW 13- 2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-6-050; CHAPTER 94 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2023, Lauren & Christian Freyer, Meeting Date: February 21, 2024 “Project Location: Pulver Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 1,573 sq. ft.. footprint home with a floor area of 2,874 sq. ft.. The project includes associated site work for stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across Pulver Road and connection to adjoining property by the same owner. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft.. of the shoreline, and work within 100 ft.. of a wetland. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of a new home. The project site is located on Pulver Road across the street from 121 Pilot Knob Road on a 0.37 ac lot in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Chapter 94 wetlands The applicant proposes a new home that is to be 32 ft. 6 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required, 24 ft. from the wetland where 50 ft. is required, 9 ft. to the west property line where 20 ft. is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the shape of the lot and location of constraints shoreline and wetlands. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested side yard setback is 11 ft., from the shoreline is 17 ft. 6 inches and from the wetland is 26 ft.. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant revised the project to remove the garage reducing the size of the home and eliminating the permeability relief. The applicant proposes to construct a new home with associated site work. The home is two-story with an attached garage. The site work includes shoreline landscaping, stormwater and the driveway area. The septic is to be installed on adjacent parcel where the septic has been approved by the local board of health.” (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 2 MR. JARRETT-Good evening. My name is Tom Jarrett with RU Holmes Engineers and our project team here tonight are Lauren Wells Freyer, representing the family, and Jace Brown, the project architect. The family would like to build a single family residence on a just over one-third acre site on Pulver Road. Currently the site is vacant. You can see some pictures. We wanted to first show you the pictures of the site. These were taken a couple of years ago, obviously in better condition than we have right now. I’ll keep going. We can look at the pictures in a second. So we met with the Planning Board last fall to get a recommendation to this Board and although we don’t think the Planning Board totally understood the project, we took their comments to heart. They’ve modified the project since then. So originally we had four variances, three setbacks, two to the water on the east, one to the property line on the west and a permeability variance. The permeability variance is actually caused by Pulver Road. It encroaches on the property. Our project is compliant with permeability as a standalone, but Pulver Road tipped it over the scale and made it a variance,, which we’ve since gotten rid of. There’s a project. The family has gone back to look at the project and looked carefully and they’ve actually eliminated the garage. They’ve reduced the size of the house considerably, and reduced the permeability on the site so that we’re compliant even now with Pulver Road. So we’re significantly below where we were before. The house was also compliant from a floor area ratio originally. Now we’re well under that. We were 22% before, which was compliant. We’re now 18%. So let me divert your attention back to the pictures on the screen. This is looking out of the site towards the lake to the north, and then we’re going to pan to the east the next couple of pictures. Well, keep panning through the pictures and we’ll have a slideshow as we go. In addition to eliminating the garage, the entrance to the house was moved around to the south side which reduced the setbacks to the water supply, the wetland and lake, the inlet to the bay slightly, but it did improve those setbacks. We’ve pushed the house as far to the west as we could reasonably to try to maximize the setbacks to the lake. Nominally the house is 10 feet from the west property line. We have a chimney that extends to nine feet. So we’re asking for a variance here. So the variances we need are two setbacks to the east an d one setback to the west, and, Jace, do you want to get into some of the houses changes maybe a little bit while we wait for pictures. MR. MC CABE-I’ve just got to have you identify yourself. JACE BROWN MR. BROWN-Jace Brown, Beardsley Architects and Engineers. So we designed the home for the family on the site. Obviously there was very little hope from the get go of creating a fully compliant design on this site. The setbacks to the east and to the north facing the wetland and facing the lake really resulted in a potential building envelope that would be less than, deep, and very, very long. Certainly would result in not a very attractive home were it to be constructed, let alone functional on this pre-existing lot. So we had presented, as Tom mentioned in the previous iteration, a design that did include a two car garage. After our meeting with the Planning Board we did decide to eliminate that. Right here you can see a new road view of the home from Pulver Road. The former two car garage has been basically shrunk down to a shed and a new entry. This also enabled us to, what had formerly been the front door to have a smaller overhang which also improved the setback to the wetlands on this side of the house. As you can see, the floor plan is a modest floor plan that has just the basic, kitchen, living, dining on the first floor. Then there’s a bedroom in the back corner and a modest patio and a screened porch facing the lake. The key thing here is this is really as narrow as we can reasonably make the house. If we were to try to make it narrower we would lose functionality to be able to have these rooms on the first floor and the second floor. They wouldn’t be able to accommodate these bedrooms, which is critical to the project. It would be critical to most people for the house. Again, two bedrooms wide on the second floor, a small flex space and office in the back. There’s the lake view of the home. Relatively locally inspired design, similar to many lake homes in the area and the neighborhood. It’s in character with other homes in the neighborhood. This is, again, the front view that you just saw. This is the façade that is on the west where the variance is being requested, and there is a hedgerow tree line that’s on the front which basically obscures this façade from the adjacent property, and then lastly some artistic renderings of the site. Obviously there’s a, here, and then to the north you can see the marina across the lake here, but this does give you a sense of how this lot is very narrow, with the wetlands to this side. We feel like the house is appropriately sized given the magnitude of the lot. We’ve also significantly reduced the throat and distance of the driveway to ensure that it’s accommodating the parking needs. And then the overall aerial. Giving some context, this, the rectangle, is the proposed home. The wetland is this right here. So this is the setback. As you can see there are no structures or views over here whatsoever that are really impacted from this shoreline setback and we’re more than compliant on the lake setback. We pulled the house back for the permeability and the driveway. So overall, from a site perspective, we feel like it’s a modest build on this site. MR. JARRETT-I’ll call your attention to the screen. This is the view from the shoreline looking directly south through the property. Pulver Road is in the background. You can’t really see it. That tree line in the background is Pulver Road. So the site is basically vacant right now, high and dry and suitable for house construction. I’d call your attention to Drawing EX-2 in your package. Jace alluded to it., The actual compliant building envelope right now, where a compliant structure can be built, is less than 10 square feet in area. So that’s the size of one of your tables. That’s the entire on the site that’s compliant. So we have to have a variance no matter what we do, and this is an existing site. It’s been in existence for many, many years, as long as I can remember. So we can throw it open to Board questions. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 3 MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a few. I went to the property on Monday and it is a nice shaped property. It’s domed. It’s not equal to the lake level, which is nice. It’ll create some good permeability. My question is, I mean I know you’re not asking for permeability, but I would definitely feel better if you were going to use permeable pavers instead of a solid driveway there, because that’s going to create, you know, water into that area of the wetlands there. So I definitely think that’s something that should be considered, even though you’re not asking for permeability. I mean I know you’ve got off site septic, which is really good. That’s nice that you’re bringing the septic off site, but I do have a little problem. I would feel more comfortable with approving this project if you’d give us a little bit more permeability, even though you don’t need that. MR. JARRETT-We did consider that before, and the family will consider that. I think that’s not a bad idea. We can’t get 100% credit for that. MR. HENKEL-I realize that, but the more you can do to protect those wetlands would be a good. MR. JARRETT-I might point out, we do have a stormwater design that sheds water towards the east, and we have a new wet swale, intercept that whole wetland boundary so it can’t get to the wetland directly. It’s going to be treated, but reducing the amount of runoff getting to that, the family would have no problem considering that. MR. HENKEL-So when I was there Monday I was pretty impressed with the soil there. I walked in and I looked at the soil and it looks like it’s going to be very permeable on that side that leads towards your wetlands. So that gives me some confidence on it, but like I said, I’d be willing to approve it based on the permeable pavers. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, I believe the public hearing is open from November. Right? So at this time I’ll ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to comment on that. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DENNIS PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips. I’m a lawyer with McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum in Glens Falls and I’m representing the neighbor, Vincent Andretta, in this matter, who as you’re looking at the lake is the neighbor to the left, and Mr. Andretta, through his daughter-in-law, has already corresponded with the Zoning Board of Appeals in an e-mail, I’m sure it’s part of your record, dated November 13, 2023, and he explains some history for this property and his major complaint is tha t the reason that the soils on this property appear to be so permeable and so good is that this property was filled a number of years ago by Mr. Philo and he indicates that before the fill was brought in that this basically was an extension of the wetland, and that the water table was very high. Wetland vegetation there, spongy all year round, and so what we’re dealing with here is a fill property rather than a natural soil kind of property. I think that is borne out by the soils work that was done on the property by the engineers when they did a number of test holes on the property. I think the test holes were 5, 6, and 7 were on that property, and I probably have not seen such good soils in a long time because they all appear to be of medium sand with trace of some gravel, and not being an engineer, I don’t know exactly what it means with some of these. Depths were at 13 inches. There is a note called a refusal. I’d ask Mr. Jarrett what that means, but to me it means that perhaps at that point there is bedrock or fractured bedrock or something which would indicate that the natural condition of that area was other than what it is now. I think that the point that Mr. Andretta makes is that he thought that this was unlawfully filled some time ago. He indicates in his e-mail that he didn’t say anything about it then, but now that someone is going to be building a house there, he felt that he had to say something about it now, and that’s why I’m here, but once the fill was brought into the area, he’s indicated that his land, which is the adjoining land, suddenly was wetter and spongier than it was before this fill was brought in, to the point where he had to do some drainage work on his own, on his own property, in order to deal with some of the water runoff coming from the fill area, and the photos that have been shown to the Board are interesting, all taken during the summer, apparently, very pretty. It’s a very pretty site. No doubt about that, but I’m going to present some photos to the Board which also are photos of the site taken when the leaves are off the trees, and I think that you can actually discern from one of the photos that I’m going to be providing you with, which I call Pulver Road fill mounded landscape, where this property is bounded to a certain degree with a high point in the middle. It slopes off to the wetlands to the right. Slopes off to the Andretta property to the left, and I’ll submit those to you so you can look at them, if I may. MR. HENKEL-Laura, do we have any information about that, if it was filled in at one time, 10 years ago, 20 years ago? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 4 MR. PHILLIPS-So as you’re looking at those photos, I think you also have in your record a copy of the deed for this property, and I’m looking at a deed that is dated in 2020 from Marian Philo to the applicants in this case, and that deed basically has two properties, two parcels. One parcel is on the Catskill, on the road heading to Catskill Bay and Pilot Knob, and then the second parcel is this strip of land that is now before you, and assuming that this was already a filled land, but I’m thinking that p robably the original intent of this deed was to have a building lot up on the main road and then a lake access lot, which would provide some kind of pedestrian access to Lake George, with the idea that a dock could be constructed there for access to the lake. Now I am merely inferring that this was the intent of this deed, but the point I’d like to make is that there is a connection between the lot that you’re looking at and that’s before you tonight and a lot that’s up on the Catskill Bay Road, and my theory is that this originally was never intended to be a building lot but a lot that would merely provide access to Lake George, and so that’s something that I think should be a factor in this. Looking at the Town map, it appears to me that this whole area is classified on the Town map as a Critical Environmental Area and I think that that’s been pointed out by Mr. Jarrett in his engineering work where on one of his plans he makes a point, and I applaud him for this, for talking about the limits of the building envelope. Once the setbacks from the property line, shoreline and wetlands are taken into account, and because of all of the overlapping regulations that would apply to that property, basically with a sliver of land the size of the table that he’s talking about, this would not be a buildable lot. So I think that that was very important as well. I notice that the Town Board allowed for an off-site system. That would be a pumping of effluent from this property up to a commonly owned property on the road. I don’t know how long that pumping would be, but I do know that this application, whatever happens here, if it’s approved, it goes to the Adirondack Park Agency, I believe, and the Adirondack Park Agency has an opportunity to review it. I do know that there is a guidance document produced by the Adirondack Park Agency which discourages pumping of effluent for a distance of greater than 250 feet, and also discourages it from running pipe lines across roads and rights of way. It appears as though on the plan here is to pump this off-site across Pulver Road and then up to a site which is on the Catskill Bay Road. So this to me would be contrary to the policy of the APA, even though this Town Board, acting as the Department of Health, approved such a plan. So with that, I think that this area has a lot of environmental problems to it, and I note that in the notice of the meeting that it has been classified as a Type II under SEQRA, and I think it’s Type II because we’re dealing with area variances here, but that’s not to say that there are not environmental problems and so I looked at the SEQRA form, the Long Form, to see if I could spot areas where notwithstanding the Type II classification, there are environmental issues to look at, and the first item that I looked at is impact on land and the question is, would this construction involve a physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed sale. Certainly the answer is yes, and then a couple of lesser questions under that. I think that that’s a yes as well. Impacts on Surface Water. This is certainly going to have impact on runoff, stormwater. That’s going to affect the wetland. It’s going to affect the adjoining property. So I checked a yes there as well. Looking at the Impact on Groundwater, with a fill site and with some hard surfaces, I think that it will affect groundwater. How much I have no idea. Flooding, I think that’s a yes, and that’s one of my client’s big concerns, that when the fill was brought into this property it produced flooding, and that’s with soils that were, based on the soil testing that’s been done on this property, those soils were almost perfect soils with sand and gravel, but now with hard surfaces and a setback of only nine feet from the property line, the thought of the client is that the flooding could be exacerbated. We don’t know how much, but it was bad before and the fear is that it will be worse after. And then of course we have the question on the Long Form of Impact on Critical Environmental Areas. MR. MC CABE-I’m going to cut you off here. The way we look at this, this is Type II. Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. I’ll stop on that, but I was saying that even though it’s a Type II, there are environmental considerations. MR. MC CABE-I understand that. MR. PHILLIPS-So as you can tell my client is opposed to this project. I’m speaking on his behalf. He feels like he should have been saying these things a long time ago, but now that a major change is going to take place right next door to him in the neighborhood that it was a time to voice his sentiments and his thoughts to the Board in a public forum. So I thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular project? Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-There’s two letters, one of which is the attorney mentioned this letter, which I think he already covered most of everything that’s in here. So I’ll read the second letter. MR. MC CABE-So are you satisfied with your presentation or would you like the letter read into the record? MR. PHILLIPS-As long as it’s in the record, I’m happy. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 5 MR. URRICO-So the second letter, this is, “I think it’s best to give you some history so you may better understand my position. I purchased my home in 2004. At that time it was or had been part of a family compound put together by Bud Walker. My house (1157) was previously occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Bud Walker; the house to my north, (1159 – 3+ bedrooms at the time) was occupied by Mr. Walker’s sister, Lois Clark nee Walker:; the house to my South (1155) a small two bedroom cottage was sold to Robert Strasser; while the large (6 Br) house across the street (1154) was occupied by a couple part time from New Jersey. We shared and share a septic field, across the street, away from the lake, in front of 1154. At some point, whether with or without permits, 1155 was increased to four bedrooms. Along came COVID and what happened? The three structures around me all became rentals. The modest two bedroom, (1155) now expanded, advertises “sleeps ten”. G-d and Google know what the other two advertise, but I think it’s something like ten (10) bedrooms and you all know and recognize that when it is a rental, those capacities are met or exceeded, often or always! Pity the poor septic system – pity our magnificent lake. This year I spent $5,000 on my septic and I was happy to do so if it preserves our lake. CONCLUSION; I have no objection to whatever is legally permitted being approved. If a variance or some special consideration is sought then it should only be done if in consideration therefore a writ ten recorded restriction is obtained from the owners, binding in perpetuity that the home or unit or part thereof will NOT BE RENTED for periods of time less than thirty (30) days consecutively. Sincerely, thank you for your time and effort in these and related matters. Martin M. Filler” 1157 Pilot Knob Road. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, just a Staff question. Is this a building lot? MRS. MOORE-The application wouldn’t be in front of you if it wasn’t allowable. MR. HENKEL-What about the Board of Health? We didn’t? MRS. MOORE-The local Board of Health already approved the septic. You don’t typically get involved in septics. MR. HENKEL-That’s what I thought. Right. Okay. MR. JARRETT-We’d like to address some of those comments that were raised in the public hearing. The site is very old and the fill was done many, many years ago. I’ve been driving on that road for several years, and that site is very, very old. I don’t know when the fill was placed, but it was not recently. I don’t believe it was illegal. The APA was there when we first started the project. They did not mention any enforcement action. They did not mention any encroachment on wetlands. All the w etlands that are present were flagged and they’re off site essentially. The CEA extends all the way around the lake, 500 feet from the shoreline, all the way around the lake. It’s just a perfunctory CEA. This is not any special circumstance compared to other areas on the lake. Every area there’s a 500 foot CEA. I did dig test pits myself, investigating the site. I personally dug those. I dug them by hand. I noticed I could not get down through the gravel and the cobbles below about 13 to 17 inches. That’s why I noted the refusal because I couldn’t get down by hand, but I noted cobbles. I didn’t notice any bedrock or anything that was evidence of bedrock. It was cobbles and gravelly. It was densely packed. That’s why the refusal on the. Very importantly runoff was mentioned and stormwater was brought up by the Board. This is not a grading plan. Our stormwater design includes a wet swale along this entire property line, and our game plan is to put a diversion swale here along the house and driveway to rout runoff around the house away from the west side to this side and all the stormwater management will be here. So the problem with runoff that potentially happens right now from this site to the neighbor will be eliminated. That runoff will not enter that property. It will go back here where it will be treated and this will protect the wetland here . So I think that issue should please the neighbor when he sees what we’re doing. As I said the APA was here. They documented wetlands. They did not see any wetlands on the property itself, and lastly SEQRA was brought up. You mentioned it’s a Type II. MR. MC CABE-It’s a Type II. That’s by law. MR. JARRETT-None of those issues I feel were outstanding, but it is a Type II. We would like to address some of the potential use of the property and I think Tim would like to address the history as well. TIM WELLS MR. WELLS-Yes. I’m Tim Wells. I’m Lauren’s dad. LAUREN WELLS FREYER MRS. FREYER-So I’ll start off. I’m Lauren Wells Freyer, one of the owners. My husband and I co-own the house with my parents. We bought it a few years ago. The first thing I want to say, I wasn’t sure when it was appropriate to jump in, but, Mr. Henkel, you certainly, it was one of the things we talked about in the design process. We’re absolutely happy to commit to that. As I just said, we are a set of parents, husband, daughter. We bought this together. We want to use this for our family. So I heard that letter. We absolutely do not intend, ever, to rent this. I grew up coming to this lake. It’s incredibly (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 6 important to me. The health of this lake is super important to all of us. We don’t really want to perpetuate the rental thing that’s going on up here. For us it’s just part of our, which is why we worked on the septic plan as it is now. We want to do as much as we can to keep the water clean. We can’t really speak to the history of the lot. Actually all that we’ve learned about the history we also were told by our neighbor, MR. Andretta. So we essentially know what you now know. He shared all that with us. We’re not familiar with timeline, but he certainly told us that it was decades ago. Again, I don’t have a clock. I can’t say, but we are aware, as well, of the drainage issues that came up on his site, and when we first spoke to him about this we told him, and we’ll say again, we are extremely happy and willing to work with him to try to alleviate that because it would bother us, too. So we’re aware of that, and as Tom just showed you on the plan, that’s why we’ve made allowances to kind of pull the backup away from his property. MR. HENKEL-No one has a right to stop you from renting it anyway. That’s not up to us. That’s not up to our Board. New York State protects you anyway from that. MRS. FREYER-That’s fair. But it’ll be us. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, I think we have to remember that we’re dealing with setbacks. The variances that we’re being asked for are two setbacks and they’re kind of moderate. They’re not really that substantial. I’m satisfied that the applicant has addressed all the other issues that need to be addressed. I will be in favor of this application. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I would be in favor of it as well. I went up and walked the property as well, and, you know, again, what’s before us is the request for setbacks, not the issues that have been brought to the fore. I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. There’s no doubt this is a small lot and if the permeability wasn’t where it is, I would definitely be kind of against it because of the wetlands, but like I said I’d be willing to approve it and I don’t know if anybody else wants to do that, but with the permeable pavers for the driveway, I think it’s a great project. That’s the point that I’d like to see. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Given the narrow width of the lot, I think it’s appropriate for what you’ve designed here, and I think that Mr. Phillips brings up valid points about the runoff, but I think that the plan to capture the runoff water and putting it over to the north side there, or the east side I think is going to alleviate that concern. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I, too, am in favor of the project. I think you’ve done a good job in compromise from what we originally saw and I like the idea of the permeable pavers and if we can make that a condition, then I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-I think that’s the way to handle that. Bob? MR. KEENAN-This is a difficult lot to deal with, especially on the lake, but I think you’ve done what you can. You’ve compromised, I think, from the last go around, and so, yes, I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I’m impressed with the concessions that the applicant has made. I had some problems originally, but the concessions have taken care of those problems. So it sounds like we’re in pretty good shape here. So, Dick, I wonder if you’d fashion us up a motion. MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lauren & Christian Freyer. (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 1,573 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,874 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across Pulver Road and connection to adjoining property by the same owner. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and work within 100 ft. of a wetland. Relief requested for setbacks. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 7 Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of a new home. The project site is located on Pulver Road across the street from 121 Pilot Knob Road on a 0.37 ac lot in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Chapter 94 wetlands The applicant proposes a new home that is to be 32 ft. 6 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required, 24 ft. from the wetland where 50 ft. is required, 9 ft. to the west property line where 20 ft. is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 15, 2023 & February 21, 2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because they’ve done all that they can to try and eliminate offsite issues. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and this is a narrow lot and alternatives are just not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. They’ve done all they can to try and utilize what they have. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. They want to build a house on a vacant lot. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That the driveway utilize permeable pavers in lieu of asphalt. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2023 LAUREN & CHRISTIAN FREYER, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21st Day of February 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Palacino, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.